I stand by my interpretation of the actions of a repeat offender in the area of salami slicing and market segmentatiom.

Very true, and all the big players feel the same way. With Hollywood a potential customer, don't expect high quality proper ergonomic video cameras on the cheap from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic anytime soon. I even doubt RED to make such a machine with so much money on the table from Hollywood.

Very true, and all the big players feel the same way. With Hollywood a potential customer, don't expect high quality proper ergonomic video cameras on the cheap from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic anytime soon. I even doubt RED to make such a machine with so much money on the table from Hollywood.

While Sony's just announced NEX camera indeed sounds like a carefully crippled product to avoid cannibalizing high-end motion camera sales, Panasonic's upcoming MFT motion camera has a promised feature set making it a potentially disruptive camera. And since disruptive is the buzzword in 2010 and pressures to cut costs are bigger than ever, I wouldn't be surprised if the other big guys join in.

As I understood it from the press release, 'no raw' applies to stills not video where it wasn't even in question that there wouldn't be raw. DPReview also specifically reads it as that. Crippled indeed given that the chip and processing are the same as the NEX5 plus added bits.

As I understood it from the press release, 'no raw' applies to stills not video where it wasn't even in question that there wouldn't be raw. DPReview also specifically reads it as that. Crippled indeed given that the chip and processing are the same as the NEX5 plus added bits.

I have NO idea why Sony has stuck religiously to the bizarre historical accident of interlaced footage on so many of their products. For me, like a lot of people, 24/25 fps (preferably both) and progressive scan is the fundamental requirement of a motion picture camera. 1080/50i just doesn't cut it, I'll take 720p at 25 fps over that any day, and the Canons are already producing 1080p at 25 fps. No excuse, Sony, this is a very bad decision. So that's the Sony ruled out for me, let's see what the Panasonic is like when it emerges into production.

... EDIT... it looks like the Sony might actually be sending 1080 25p over 1080i. A slightly bizarre choice, but easier to recover to true 25p in post if that's true. No use for NTSC countries who will at best be stick with 30p over 60i, less bad for people like me who have settled on 25p as a good overall film-like choice without the vagaries of 24-fps-ish frame rates and fiddling about... but still, if the damn thing is recording 1080 25p, send it out as that.

I am usually skeptical about claims of deliberate "hobbling": that a company is making a product less good than it could be in order to avoid taking sales from with its other products, unless those other products have a near monopoly, with no significant competition form other brands. When there is viable competition, the main consequence of such hobbling would be pushing sales to competitors' similarly priced but un-hobbled products, not to the company's own more expensive products.

But on the internet, the most cynical interpretation of the facts is often the most popular, so I expect the hobbling explanation to stay popular.

Maybe because it has basis in truth. The reason RED was set up was because the founder was fed up of the hobbled cameras on offer from the established players, a frustration I also shared, but I'm not rich enough to create a company to fill the hole! And you do not lose out to a rival brand if the entire business is based around crippling cameras to certain price points. Video cameras were particularly dreadful in this respect with certain features being left out of each pricing tier forcing you to jump to a much more expensive camera, just to get something that would have neglible affect on production costs, but is known to be needed for pro production work. Just like train prices at commuter times can be 10 times the off peak cost. And every couple of years, the cameras would be upgraded ever so slightly with a tiny trickle of features that should have been there in the first place [a marketing tactic Apple are masters at].I also seem to vaguely recall it is part of Japanese business practice not to upset how business is done by seriously undercutting your Japanese rivals, not quite a cartel, but more like a gentleman's agreement. And interestingly, it was a brash American who changed things.For example, the reason why video suddenly appeared in DSLRs and the rise of the new Sony video gear with large chips and small prices is directly because of RED's emergence. RED completely disrupted the old business model. DSLRs always had the potential to do video as it's just a firmware upgrade, just like all the pocket cameras do. But the camera makers wanted to protect their video divisions [except Nikon who aren't really that interested in video], so they never enabled the feature until there was possible competition and even if RED disappears due to its slowness in bringing kit to market, they still will have been massively influential and indeed game changers as Canon, Sony and Panasonic were forcedby RED's new business model of not hobbling cameras to offer professional features at price points that were affordable. Before RED, people always rented cameras for film/high end video shoots, now many production companies buy them outright and still save money.

Actually, it was Nikon and Canon who retaliated against Sony by modding their still camera for video when Sony moved into the dSLR business.

Edmund

Quote from: jjj

Maybe because it has basis in truth. The reason RED was set up was because the founder was fed up of the hobbled cameras on offer from the established players, a frustration I also shared, but I'm not rich enough to create a company to fill the hole! And you do not lose out to a rival brand if the entire business is based around crippling cameras to certain price points. Video cameras were particularly dreadful in this respect with certain features being left out of each pricing tier forcing you to jump to a much more expensive camera, just to get something that would have neglible affect on production costs, but is known to be needed for pro production work. Just like train prices at commuter times can be 10 times the off peak cost. And every couple of years, the cameras would be upgraded ever so slightly with a tiny trickle of features that should have been there in the first place [a marketing tactic Apple are masters at].I also seem to vaguely recall it is part of Japanese business practice not to upset how business is done by seriously undercutting your Japanese rivals, not quite a cartel, but more like a gentleman's agreement. And interestingly, it was a brash American who changed things.For example, the reason why video suddenly appeared in DSLRs and the rise of the new Sony video gear with large chips and small prices is directly because of RED's emergence. RED completely disrupted the old business model. DSLRs always had the potential to do video as it's just a firmware upgrade, just like all the pocket cameras do. But the camera makers wanted to protect their video divisions [except Nikon who aren't really that interested in video], so they never enabled the feature until there was possible competition and even if RED disappears due to its slowness in bringing kit to market, they still will have been massively influential and indeed game changers as Canon, Sony and Panasonic were forcedby RED's new business model of not hobbling cameras to offer professional features at price points that were affordable. Before RED, people always rented cameras for film/high end video shoots, now many production companies buy them outright and still save money.

Actually, it was Nikon and Canon who retaliated against Sony by modding their still camera for video when Sony moved into the dSLR business.

It took them over 30 months to 'retaliate' via a firmware tweak and as Sony make Nikon's sensors, Nikon are hardly going to upset their only sensor supplier. Plus Sony took over and rebranded Minolta as opposed to creating a completely new brand, though they did breath new life into ailing Minolta.RED caused big waves in the film/video industry, that stills photographers were probably unaware of for quite a while and RED certainly precipitated the rise of affordable video from companies that previously charged silly money for the same or actually lesser quality video in their professional camcorders. Canon were fundamentally undermining their own video business. Small film makers do not buy Canon Video gear anymore, they buy 7Ds or 5DIIs or rent REDs if they can't quite afford them yet.In fact in a discussion at a recent local film makers gathering, someone was actively discouraged from even considering buying such kit, by one of the regions key producers. Prosumer camcorders like those Canon make are simply seen as a waste of money for serious work now.

For example, the reason why video suddenly appeared in DSLRs and the rise of the new Sony video gear with large chips and small prices is directly because of RED's emergence.

I am not sure that RED had anything to do with it; the shift to CMOS sensors in DSLR's that naturally support Live View and Video seems to me to have more to do with this trend. Video and Live View are long-standing and popular feature of consumer digicams, and it was natural for both features to move into larger formats once CMS sensors allowed it. Note that both started largely at the consumer end: Live View first in Four Third SLR's, then video in the Nikon D90 followed by Micro Four Thirds. The main goal seems to be overcoming some perceived disadvantages of DSLR's, so as to get more consumer level camera buyers to buy into a more profitable interchangeable lens system, plus the natural idea of adding something useful once new technology makes it cheap and easy to do so. And once the systems support video, offering a camera in a more video friendly form-factor that uses the same lenses (cutting lens costs substantially compared to having a dedicated video-camera only lens system, I would think) is a natural next step.

Nor do any of these "still sensors with some video ability" seem capable of competing with dedicated cine-format video sensors from RED, Sony, etc.

When teh tiny DV devices came out, Pro TV stations were supposed to buy the same miniature pocket recording DV gear, with a different encoding scheme. If I remember rightly; of course they just went and bought the consumer models for their field work.

And you do not lose out to a rival brand if the entire business is based around crippling cameras to certain price points.

In fairness, this is de rigeur in many industries. We see it in software to phones to cars to beer. It's not (necessarily) a bad thing, as it allows companies to produce products which would otherwise be unprofitable, and allows them to sell the crippled product to those who are unwilling or incapable to pay for the full product. For example, Photoshop Elements is aimed at those who don't want to spend thousands on a full image editing suite.

In fairness, this is de rigeur in many industries. We see it in software to phones to cars to beer. It's not (necessarily) a bad thing, as it allows companies to produce products which would otherwise be unprofitable, and allows them to sell the crippled product to those who are unwilling or incapable to pay for the full product. For example, Photoshop Elements is aimed at those who don't want to spend thousands on a full image editing suite.

True.the same has been for computer CPUs. Intel has been a master at selling crippled processors,

In fairness, this is de rigeur in many industries. We see it in software to phones to cars to beer. It's not (necessarily) a bad thing, as it allows companies to produce products which would otherwise be unprofitable, and allows them to sell the crippled product to those who are unwilling or incapable to pay for the full product. For example, Photoshop Elements is aimed at those who don't want to spend thousands on a full image editing suite.

And the public supports that notion expect when it is trivial to actually make the product categories. By publicly voicing our opinion we can hopefully bring change. Do you really want companies charging $1000 more when a 1 becomes a 0? I know you don't, just making a point. When companies are found out for this someone needs to voice this fact and get pricing in line with reality.

And the public supports that notion expect when it is trivial to actually make the product categories. By publicly voicing our opinion we can hopefully bring change.

There is only one voice to effectively voice an opinion in this case: with your wallet. The prevalence of crippled products in many industries implies it works, and that the consumers don't mind it.

I sure don't. By and large there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to consumer goods and software. Just imagine how the world would be if Nikon and Canon had only one camera model.

What does get me is nickle and diming, shoddy quality, poor support, and the race to the bottom. Again, consumers are speaking with their wallets by buying the cheapest product there is and ignoring TCO, so unfortunately I think that's (another) losing battle.

Very true, and all the big players feel the same way. With Hollywood a potential customer, don't expect high quality proper ergonomic video cameras on the cheap from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic anytime soon. I even doubt RED to make such a machine with so much money on the table from Hollywood.

Peter Jackson has bought a stack of REDs and used them for District 9 [he produced it] and parts of Lovely Bones were also shot with REDs. Steven Soderbergh is also a fan of the RED camera and particularly liked the ergonomics.

In fairness, this is de rigeur in many industries. We see it in software to phones to cars to beer. It's not (necessarily) a bad thing, as it allows companies to produce products which would otherwise be unprofitable, and allows them to sell the crippled product to those who are unwilling or incapable to pay for the full product. For example, Photoshop Elements is aimed at those who don't want to spend thousands on a full image editing suite.

"In fairness"!! So because other companies price fix or artificially price point products, that makes it all right? It still a con, no matter how many people do it. And if companies collude to do this it is then a cartel and is actually illegal behaviour. Doing so by unspoken agreement is not illegal, but just as bad as it's the same end result.

There is only one voice to effectively voice an opinion in this case: with your wallet. The prevalence of crippled products in many industries implies it works, and that the consumers don't mind it.

Nonsense. That is such poor logic. Say I want to buy a video camera for professional work and my budget is only £3k, but if cameras at that level are crippled for pro work compared to those costing £20k. I have to buy the crippled product and put up with it. Which was exactly the situation a few years back. This is why RED was founded in the first place as Jim Jannard was fed up with this behaviour and why film makers are buying 5D+7Ds and not video cameras these days.

Quote

I sure don't. By and large there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to consumer goods and software. Just imagine how the world would be if Nikon and Canon had only one camera model.

One size fits all is a different issue to crippling products. Besides DSLRs within brands don't exactly vary much except by features. Cheap Canons tend to be very similar to expensive Canons in most ways, just as as all Nikons are quite similar. And basically it is one size fits all as if you want a FF Canon with video and your budget is £2K, you have the choice of one single camera.